Cited by 49Forest Biomass Utilization and ManagementAgricultural and Food SciencesBioeconomy and Sustainability Development

Economic analysis of forest residues supply chain options to produce enhanced‐quality feedstocks

Sahoo, Kamalakanta, Bilek, Edward, Bergman, Richard, Kizha, Anil R., Mani, Sudhagar·2019·Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining

Abstract

Woody biomass feedstock that is both high quality and low cost has become increasingly important for the bioenergy and bioproducts industries. Logging generates forest residues – low‐quality feedstock – and additional operations that also incur additional costs, such as biomass sorting and treetops processing (BSTP), micro‐chipping, and screening, which are required to improve the feedstock's quality. Considering recent developments in technologies and BSTP to generate high‐quality feedstocks, economic models were developed in this study to estimate various forest‐residue logistics operational costs and to analyze the economics of delivering feedstocks to biomass conversion technology (BCT) sites near woods or power plants located far away in the form of chips, hog fuel, and bales. The results show that the cost of BSTP can vary between $30 and $82/ODMT (oven dry metric ton) based on the biomass sorting intensity. The most economical way to deliver forest residues was transporting processed stem‐wood from landings to near‐wood BCT sites and comminuting it into woodchips there (~$20/ODMT, assuming a one‐way (32 km) road distance and no cost of BSTP at landings). Grinding slash at the landing and transporting ground‐biomass (i.e., hog fuel) to a plant (< 22 km away) was more economical than transporting bales from landings and grinding at the plant. The economic feasibility of baling and BSTP requires a substantial productivity improvement or recognition and incorporation of be…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bbb.1958

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 52 · Cited by 49

Authors
Sahoo, K., Bilek, E., Bergman, R., Kizha, A. R., & Mani, S.
Affiliations
  • US Forest Service (US)
  • Forest Products Laboratory (US)
  • University of Maine (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Sahoo, Kamalakanta
Venue
Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-12-19
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
514-534
ISSN
  • 1932-1031 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-104X
OpenAlex
W2905818277
Cited by
49
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐EE0006297)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agricultural and Food Sciences
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Keywords
forest residues, biomass supply chain, hog fuel, wood chips, biomass conversion technologies, bioenergy economics, forest health, wildfire risk reduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review